The Mechanical Engine

[Inquorate]

Latch mechanisms

They're just plywood cut with a handheld verticle saw. Version #4; quite fiddley. My bearings have a bit of give hence the little blocks to stop horizontal displacement. I used a spade drill-bit to sink the bearings into the plywood; the rest is just a nut and bolt and washers..

Nothing physically wrong with the missus, she just fell off the deep end mentally after one too many traumatic events.

But thankyou for your kind words, it's appreciated.

I'm kinda scared to have the wheel working for some reason; that and I feel like if it does, there should be more pomp and ceremony like a ship's maiden voyage..

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Love and light

[Ted Ewert]

@Ben, I hope your wife is OK. Thanks for the video, more interesting results.
Looks like you've made some good progress on your wheel. What did you build your latch mechanisms out of?

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

I don't want to lower the amount needed, I want to raise the amount generated.

Wilbur & Orville Wright might be turning over in their graves at that statement... their plane engine was very small horsepower. They achieved flight by a seriously-reduced plane weight. Weight is important and where the weight is concentrated is also important Ted. Weight that is inside the pendulum diameter tends to be Drag Weight.

IMHO of course, apparently not shared by everyone.

[Inquorate]

Welcome to my loungeroom..

Just a wheel building update pic. The missus is in hospital so I'm able to get away with building things in the house...

Wheel.jpg (image)

Keep ya posted.

[Inquorate]

down force

Hi guys, I posted this in a text statement, but thought since it seemed to slide under the radar I thought I'd post the video link.

YouTube - 8 ball

Gotta do more experiments yet.

Love and light

[marxist]

phase shift in cam systems - where?

Hello Peter Lindemann,

when you were mentioning "...keep the WEIGHT of the moving mass referenced to the wheel ..."
in posting #597 I could not quite grasp what that meant, but after you now explained it, I think I can.
What I now understand from your explanation, is that the cam should only act as a guide, while at the same time the weight(s) should exert their force solely on the wheel at all time (and not on the CAM/guide).

This I have now understood. Then you also state

...The reason Veljko's system works is that he has created a 90 degree phase shift between the movements. I think your weights have to slide free, but be connected back to a cam follower that is phase shifted by 90 degrees. I haven't worked it all out in my head, but the weights must rest on the wheel 100% for it to work....

I understand that the swing of the pendulum and of the hammer in Veljko's system show a phase shift, since their up and down movements happen at different points in time.

But I can not see what you mean by "phase shift" when referring to a cam system.
Maybe you can find time to explain this?
Thanks.

[Ted Ewert]

Ted,

This result is what I got when I tried something similar. My analysis was that the weight was not staying referenced to the wheel, but was sharing its mass distribution with the stationary cam.

When the weights are sliding OUT, they actually rest mostly on the CAM, and not on the wheel. The same thing happens when they are sliding back IN.

The machine is not a failure. It is actually telling you "the truth". Simply observe where the weights distribute there mass through the movements. There may still be a way to make the system behave as envisioned.

The reason Veljko's system works is that he has created a 90 degree phase shift between the movements. I think your weights have to slide free, but be connected back to a cam follower that is phase shifted by 90 degrees. I haven't worked it all out in my head, but the weights must rest on the wheel 100% for it to work.

Peter

You may be right about the cam. I agree that it should all be done on the wheel. I've come up with a couple of new configurations that do just that. It won't take much to revise what I have already, so I'll get started tomorrow.
The only external mechanism I may use would be a catch release.
Far from being a failure, the cam wheel was just the first of the series. This kind of thing is a process of finding out what works and what doesn't. The more stuff we can build and test, the better we can nail down a successful design. Even more important, new ideas come from watching how the machine runs (or doesn't run).
Ever dropped a one pound weight on your toe (it hurts!)? I think I may start dropping some weights around the wheel. Nothing like straight down to develop some quick velocity. Pics will be forthcoming.

Cheers,

Ted

[Peter Lindemann]

Weight Referenced to the Wheel

I don't want to lower the amount needed, I want to raise the amount generated.

Ted,

This result is what I got when I tried something similar. My analysis was that the weight was not staying referenced to the wheel, but was sharing its mass distribution with the stationary cam.

When the weights are sliding OUT, they actually rest mostly on the CAM, and not on the wheel. The same thing happens when they are sliding back IN.

The machine is not a failure. It is actually telling you "the truth". Simply observe where the weights distribute there mass through the movements. There may still be a way to make the system behave as envisioned.

The reason Veljko's system works is that he has created a 90 degree phase shift between the movements. I think your weights have to slide free, but be connected back to a cam follower that is phase shifted by 90 degrees. I haven't worked it all out in my head, but the weights must rest on the wheel 100% for it to work.

Peter

[Ted Ewert]

Okay. So how might you lower the amount of kinetic energy needed?

I don't want to lower the amount needed, I want to raise the amount generated.

[CloudSeeder]

Lack of sufficient kinetic energy was the problem.
Ted

Okay. So how might you lower the amount of kinetic energy needed?

[Ted Ewert]

@Ted: Wood has a lot of friction. Maybe some kind of wax, or a coating of shellac would help. Also, putting a metal band around the outer rim might help pull it around (increased inertia). When I start building mine next month I'm going to try to eliminate as much of the weight on the inside of the rim as I can, barebones. <> You could set some bolts or studs around the rim so you could add weights til ya got enough weight around, overcome the friction I think.

Friction wasn't an issue since I was using ball bearings. More rim weight wasn't an issue either.
Lack of sufficient kinetic energy was the problem. This came directly from lack of acceleration through the mechanism of the cam. Besides, a poor design won't cut it no matter how frictionless it is.

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

@Ted: Wood has a lot of friction. Maybe some kind of wax, or a coating of shellac would help. Also, putting a metal band around the outer rim might help pull it around (increased inertia). When I start building mine next month I'm going to try to eliminate as much of the weight on the inside of the rim as I can, barebones. <> You could set some bolts or studs around the rim so you could add weights til ya got enough weight around, overcome the friction I think.

[Ted Ewert]

@John. Way to go man. I know how it is to get something all built and then it doesn't work. It can be a little disappointing, but you can't beat it for a learning experience.
I just had one myself. I fired up my cam wheel today and it just turned around a few times and stopped. The cam doesn't develop any significant power in the overall scheme of things. I think the theory works, but the anticipated gain just didn't show up (not the first time that happened ).
Here's the finished cam:



Here is the assembled wheel:



You can't see much, but these are the weights riding in the cam slots:



It all comes down to velocity. I couldn't develop any significant velocity/power with the cam and weights I used. With big weights, a perfectly balanced and machined wheel and a little more rotational speed, this concept might produce something worthwhile, but I don't know.
I'm still deciding if I want to waste any more time on this thing or go in a new direction.
I did think of a couple of interesting impact designs today. I thought of a weight dropping straight down from the end of a lever. That might have possibilities.

Cheers,

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

@John_g: I recall seeing your pictures back then. Very nice work, very detailed. When somebody enjoys their work it shows.

[john_g]

Hi

In post #84 I put forword the idea of a floating beam, and thought I would share initial progress. It does not work - no surprise there, but may be of use sharing some of the ideas outside of the box (wheel!).

Main features :
Floating beam weighted at each end running on rollers - very little effort required to overbalance when in the 3 - 9 o'clock position.

Helper arms connected with tapes that propel the beam quickly to overcentre, quite powerful in action, need to recover some of that energy!

Weight reducer cams that co-operate with the axle thus reducing the weight on the whole turning assembly.

Anyway I have put this together to get my hands dirty and get a feel for what's involved. It needs more inertia so I will try and cast up more weights and take it from there.

Regards

John